EPISODE
BREAKDOWN: On this episode of Breaking the Set, Abby Martin discusses
revelations by The Intercept that a secretive terrorist organization
known as The Khorasan Group, that was said to pose an imminent threat to
the United States by government officials, was largely fabricated. Abby
then goes over the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong, highlighting
the long history of tension between mainland China and the autonomous
region and how China is responding to mass protests in the streets. Abby
then speaks with Erin Ade, host of Boom Bust, about a stunning series
of recordings released by former New York Federal Reserve employee,
Carmen Segarra, showing the collusion between the regulatory body and
Goldman Sachs. Abby then talks about a $500 million settlement between
the government and Navajo nation over destruction of tribal land due to
uranium mining and how this amount will do nothing to alleviate the pain
and suffering caused by this industry. BTS wraps up the show with an
interview with producer, Manuel Rapalo, about some of the most
overlooked speeches during the UN General Assembly from Evo Morales’
comments on the Security Council to Dilma Rousseff’s speech on the NSA.

Monday, September 29, 2014

Ban Weaponized Drones from the World

Meticulous researchers have documented that U.S. drones are killing many
innocent civilians in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere. Drones are making
the world less stable and creating new enemies. Their remoteness
provides those responsible with a sense of immunity.

Weaponized drones are no more acceptable than land mines, cluster bombs,
or chemical weapons. The world must renounce and forbid their
manufacture, possession, or use. Violators must be held accountable.

We, the undersigned organizations and individuals, urge

the United Nations Secretary General to investigate the
concerns of Navi Pillay, the U.N.'s top human rights official, that
drone attacks violate international law -- and to ultimately pursue
sanctions against nations using, possessing, or manufacturing weaponized
drones;

the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to investigate grounds for the criminal prosecution of those responsible for drone attacks;

the U.S. Secretary of State, and the ambassadors to the
United States from the nations of the world, to support a treaty
forbidding the possession or use of weaponized drones;

President Barack Obama, to abandon the use of weaponized drones, and to abandon his "kill list" program regardless of the technology employed;

the Majority and Minority Leaders of the U.S. House and Senate, to ban the use or sale of weaponized drones.

the governments of each of our nations around the world, to ban the use or sale of weaponized drones.

Obama: Don't Bomb Syria or Iraq!

President
Obama has been conducting airstrikes in Iraq and even has over 1,000
pairs of boots on the ground, and now he is threatening to begin
airstrikes in Syria–– all without Congressional approval. US military
intervention in the region has historically been counterproductive.
Tell President Obama: Don’t bomb Syria or Iraq!

Dear President Obama,

We are deeply concerned about the people of Syria and Iraq and the
threat to their safety that ISIS poses, but we know that US military
intervention in the region has historically been counterproductive. We
especially saw this play out after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. Instead
of relying on the U.S. military to solve the crisis, what’s needed is a
political and humanitarian solution to the crisis, not more violence.

Last month, the House of Representatives passed H. Con. Res. 105,
stating clearly that there is no legal authority for U.S. military
involvement in the Middle East without express Congressional approval.
At the very least, you (a constitutional lawyer!) should follow US law
and consult Congress before taking military action.

The American people are sick of war and too many lives have been
lost at the receiving end of American weapons. President Obama, we call
on you not to bomb Syria or Iraq.

No New War: We're Not Going Back to Iraq

Insurgents
are advancing on Baghdad and again, the United States contemplates
military action. But the American people have already made up our mind
-- we're not going back to Iraq.

Petition: "U.S. military action in Iraq: It sure didn’t work out well last time. Let’s not make that mistake again."

Click HERE to sign the petition and to read Rep. Grayson's USA Today op-ed against military intervention in Iraq.

Stay Out Of Syria

How does an unpopular president sell the American people on a war
in Syria against ISIS after failing to sell the war in Syria against
Assad?

How does an unpopular president sell the American
people on a war in Syria against ISIS after failing to sell the war in
Syria against Assad?

He doesn't. He appears aloof, goes golfing and
lets the same old neocons and liberals (Lindsey Graham, John McCain,
Mike Rogers, Diane Feinstein) beat the war drums and blame him for NOT
ACTING.

Consider this an exercise in critical thinking. Step outside of the
24-hour news cycle and look at how we got here..... It may make you look
at this situation differently.

Start in Benghazi. More evidence is coming to light that we were arming the Syrian rebels
(Many now in ISIS) to the teeth. At least 500 Million Taxpayer dollars
worth of American weaponry went to Syrian Rebels. (Martosko, Daily Mail,
4-22-14)

Syrian Rebels set off chemical weapons and blamed Assad (Nebehay, Reuters, 5-5-13) in order to drag the US into the Syrian civil war.
The neocons and Obama beat the drums of war, but Americans not wanting
to get involved in Syria and not knowing who we should be supporting
SHOUTED DOWN the war drums and we stayed out of Syria.

Sign the petition to keep us out of Syria and be heard!

Fast forward to the new enemy - ISIS. The SAME people who told us about a
year ago that we needed to save from Assad are the SAME people beating
the same war drums to stop ISIS in..... wait for it..... SYRIA.

At the same time that we are told the ISIS threat is everywhere, we are told we need to strike SYRIA. WHY???? WHY SYRIA?

ISIS is a radical islamist group full of psychotic militants.
So why did we arm them? What did they think ISIS was going to do with
the weapons? They knew. They knew they would act like psychotic militant
radicals act.

Assad wasn't scary enough. Create the bogeyman, let the bogeyman cause some havoc, turn on the bogeyman and..... go to war with the bogeyman.

Obama could not sell this new war to the American people. No one trusts him.
So he plays golf and looks aloof while the usual neocons and liberals
beat the drums of war (McCain/Graham, NY Times, 8-29-14) until he comes
around.

Pacifism is utopian and foolish. There are bad, evil people. ISIS
and Assad are not good folks. That's why we fight for our 2nd Amendment
rights to defend ourselves and our country. We should accept that ISIS
is a threat and our government should act to DEFEND our country
accordingly. But is going to war in SYRIA in our best interest?

Parliament has voted for the third Iraq War. The last two have
brought almost unimaginable suffering to the people of Iraq and
have helped to create the current chaos, driving the country to
the brink of break up.

They claim this is a humanitarian operation to defeat Isis. In
fact Isis is backed by various middle east powers and a new aerial
bombardment will not defeat it. It will however kill innocents,
further fragment the country and inflame violence.

The record of the west's wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya show
that as well as creating misery and mayhem, western military
interventions make the world a more volatile, dangerous place.

Cameron's new war has built-in mission creep. Discussions are
already underway for Britain to join the bombing of Syria, and
there are growing calls for boots on the ground.

The Stop the War Coalition is asking every one of its supporters
to throw themselves in to the campaign against the insanity of
another war on Iraq.

Spread the word everywhere about next Saturday's demonstration:

Get the anti-war message onto every High Street and
community. Organise petitioning, leafleting, street meetings
and protests where you live. Phone or e-mail us to be put in
touch with other local anti-war activists.

Friday, September 26, 2014

Thank you for signing the declaration of peace at WorldBeyondWar.org and for indicating your interest in helping us communicate the message of ending all war.If you'd like to help with media or communications, we'd like your help! Please write to Joe Scarry at media@worldbeyondwar.org and let him know what experience you have, what contacts, resources, and skills.

If you'd like to help with social media, please write to Joe Scarry at media@worldbeyondwar.org

If you would like to help by blogging, please write to Christopher Hoare atbloggers@worldbeyondwar.org
-- You can also go right ahead and blog about the content on the
website, embed the popular new video, and interview the people in the
Speakers Bureau, all of which you can find at

Shamefully it is almost certain that today MPs will vote for a new
assault on Iraq.

After excellent protests yesterday in London and a number of
others across the UK, the anti-war movement now needs to move in
to overdrive.

The response to our actions and arguments in the last few days
shows that while the war propaganda has had an impact, there is a
huge anti-war constituency. Thousands have lobbied
their MPs for the vote and our website is attracting tens of
thousands of visitors a day.

Tomorrow, Saturday, we are asking all our groups and
supporters to hit the streets in your communities with
protests, street stalls, petitioning sessions and placards. We
need to make sure the Don't Bomb Iraq message is
visible everywhere.

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Stay Out Of Syria

How does an unpopular president sell the American people on a war
in Syria against ISIS after failing to sell the war in Syria against
Assad?

How does an unpopular president sell the American
people on a war in Syria against ISIS after failing to sell the war in
Syria against Assad?

He doesn't. He appears aloof, goes golfing and
lets the same old neocons and liberals (Lindsey Graham, John McCain,
Mike Rogers, Diane Feinstein) beat the war drums and blame him for NOT
ACTING.

Consider this an exercise in critical thinking. Step outside of the
24-hour news cycle and look at how we got here..... It may make you look
at this situation differently.

Start in Benghazi. More evidence is coming to light that we were arming the Syrian rebels
(Many now in ISIS) to the teeth. At least 500 Million Taxpayer dollars
worth of American weaponry went to Syrian Rebels. (Martosko, Daily Mail,
4-22-14)

Syrian Rebels set off chemical weapons and blamed Assad (Nebehay, Reuters, 5-5-13) in order to drag the US into the Syrian civil war.
The neocons and Obama beat the drums of war, but Americans not wanting
to get involved in Syria and not knowing who we should be supporting
SHOUTED DOWN the war drums and we stayed out of Syria.

Sign the petition to keep us out of Syria and be heard!

Fast forward to the new enemy - ISIS. The SAME people who told us about a
year ago that we needed to save from Assad are the SAME people beating
the same war drums to stop ISIS in..... wait for it..... SYRIA.

At the same time that we are told the ISIS threat is everywhere, we are told we need to strike SYRIA. WHY???? WHY SYRIA?

ISIS is a radical islamist group full of psychotic militants.
So why did we arm them? What did they think ISIS was going to do with
the weapons? They knew. They knew they would act like psychotic militant
radicals act.

Assad wasn't scary enough. Create the bogeyman, let the bogeyman cause some havoc, turn on the bogeyman and..... go to war with the bogeyman.

Obama could not sell this new war to the American people. No one trusts him.
So he plays golf and looks aloof while the usual neocons and liberals
beat the drums of war (McCain/Graham, NY Times, 8-29-14) until he comes
around.

Pacifism is utopian and foolish. There are bad, evil people. ISIS
and Assad are not good folks. That's why we fight for our 2nd Amendment
rights to defend ourselves and our country. We should accept that ISIS
is a threat and our government should act to DEFEND our country
accordingly. But is going to war in SYRIA in our best interest?

As
you know, last night the U.S. bombed Syria in what is likely to become
another long war in the Middle East. Last year, we forced the Obama
administration to rightfully ask Congress for authorization to bomb
Syria. That authorization never came because of staunch public and
congressional opposition. Now there is a new target and mission. Yet,
there are three reasons to pause and oppose these bombings.

First, it is unclear whether these
bombings are legal under international law. Second, the Obama
Administration claims it has Constitutional authorization from the 2001
congressional vote after 9/11, but not all in Congress agree. And
lastly, expert upon expert say that military escalation will fail to
solve these problems in the long run (even the CIA is skeptical).

Please take a few moments and call your Representative and both Senators at (202) 224-3121and say:

“I am a constituent and I want Congress
to fully debate a new authorization (AUMF) that deals with Syria, Iraq
and ISIS. And when the vote comes, I want you to vote no.”

Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, a
country under attack has the right of self-defense, but that only
applies to actual or imminent armed attacks, not potential or possible
attacks. The U.S. claims it was thwarting terrorists from the Khorasan
Group from a plot on America. Yet we don’t know the details of this
so-called imminent attack. What was the weapon? When were they going
to use it, and where?

Pick up the phone and call your Representative and both Senators at (202) 224-3121 and use the script above.

Congress has not voted on a war
authorization regarding terrorism since 2001. Things have changed and
many members in Congress agree it is time to have a full and fair debate
and for Congress to take back its Constitutional authority to declare
war. This debate and vote should happen ASAP.

Your calls to your Representative and both Senators at (202) 224-3121 can make a difference. Use the script above.

President Obama is right when he says
that there is no military solution to ISIS. Yet it seems that most of
the U.S. energy is directed towards a failed military strategy. Already
there are reports of innocent women and children being killed in the
U.S. attack last night. We know this tends to create more enmity toward
our country. Regional diplomacy that includes the UN and efforts to
end the Syrian civil war, cutting off ISIS’s oil revenues and access to
weapons, and humanitarian aid to refugees in Iraq and Syria will be far
more effective in dealing with ISIS and other terrorists than military
escalation.

Make three calls to your Representative and both Senators at (202) 224-3121. Use the script above.

Finally, we need to take a step back and
get at the root of terrorism by supporting tolerance, education,
poverty alleviation and justice. Additionally, limiting the amount of
lethal weapons that end up being used by the wrong people will remove
some of the fuel from the terrorist fire.

Humbly for Peace,

Kevin Martin
Executive Director
Peace Action

P.S. - Make your voice heard to your Representative and both Senators at (202) 224-3121 and tell them:

“I am a constituent and I want Congress
to fully debate a new authorization (AUMF) that deals with Syria, Iraq
and ISIS. And when the vote comes, I want you to vote no.”

David Cameron is planning to recall
parliament on Friday to push through a vote for the UK to join the
US in bombing Isis in Iraq and possibly Syria.

If this vote passes British forces will be back in action in Iraq
just three years after the last troops were withdrawn from the
catastrophic occupation of 2003-11. The development comes in the
same week Tony Blair called for renewed bombing in the region and
the possibility of boots on the ground.

All the experience of the terrible wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and
Libya has shown that western military action only serves to kill
innocents, destroy infrastructure and inflame violence.

Isis is a reactionary force, but it is in part a product of the
disastrous occupation of Iraq by Western powers. Isis is funded by
some of our main allies in the region, including Saudi Arabia.
Escalating Western military intervention will do nothing to stop
them but will create more suffering and further destabilise the
region.

Stop the War is calling on our supporters to protest this Thursday
evening outside Downing Street from 5.30pm till 7.30pm. Nearest
tubes: Westminster and Charing Cross.

Monday, September 22, 2014

Last week both the House and the Senate rushed to pass a bill
authorizing the president to train and arm so-called "moderate" Syrian
rebels.1
CREDO members reported pouring well over 3,000 calls into their
representatives and senators. But, in the end, the majority of Democrats
joined with Republicans to rubberstamp the president’s proposal.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which is already fighting
with American weapons it captured from the Iraqi military, could likely
be the main beneficiary of Congress’ rush to war. The shifting,
opportunistic alliances and fragmented opposition in the Syrian civil
war make it virtually inevitable that American-funded rebels will end up
fighting alongside Sunni extremists like ISIS. They'll bring their
American weapons with them, and those weapons may well be trained on
American targets.

This is eerily reminiscent of the CIA operation in the 1980s to arm and
train the Mujahideen rebels in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet invasion
-- a fighting force that with the help of U.S. aid evolved into the
Taliban and launched al Qaeda into the world.

Congress’ decision will make America less safe and fuel further violence in the Syrian civil war and in Iraq.

Funding and arming the Syrian rebels is the first part of President
Obama’s plan to fight ISIS by opening a new American front in Iraq and
Syria. Our movement may have lost this round, but it’s a wake up call
for the anti-war movement to organize and stop the Obama administration
and Congress from repeating the mistakes of Iraq and Afghanistan. We
must not end up entangled in yet another costly and unwinnable war that
makes Americans less, not more, safe.

There are five things you need to know about the president’s plan to go to war with ISIS in Iraq and Syria:

1. The main fight over whether we go to war in Syria and Iraq is
going to happen in Congress in December over a new Authorization for the
Use of Military Force to renew George W. Bush’s blank check for war.
Congress is widely expected to debate and vote on whether to give
President Obama the authority to wage a sustained, multi-year war
against ISIS during the December "lame duck" session, once the pressures
of election season have subsided. This will come in the form of an
Authorization for Use of Military Force (or AUMF). Senator Dick Durbin
has already announced that the Senate will debate and vote on a new AUMF
for Iraq and Syria after the 2014 midterm elections.2Will Congress write a blank check for war like it gave George W. Bush before the invasion of Iraq?

Will it approve a limited intervention that expires after a short time
limit, bans the president from putting troops on the ground, and
includes significant Congressional oversight? Or will it vote to block
the administration from starting a war with Syria and expanding the war
in Iraq? What happens will depend on us, and whether we can organize
strong opposition in the run up to the 2016 presidential election. In
fact, several presidential hopefuls voted against arming the rebels,
foreshadowing what could be a major issue in both Republican and
Democratic party primaries for the presidency.

Our best shot to stop another blank check for war is in the Senate,
where Democrats hold a narrow majority. The Senate is threatened with a
Tea Party takeover if Republicans can win six seats in the November
mid-terms. If that happens, it will make a tough fight to stop another
war dramatically more difficult. That’s why earlier this year CREDO
SuperPAC launched the Save the Senate, volunteer voter contact campaign
to organize thousands of volunteers to get out the progressive vote in
five key battleground states and stop a Tea Party takeover of the
Senate.

President Obama's publicly stated position is that he doesn't need authorization from Congress to go to war with ISIS.3
Instead, he has claimed that the outrageously broad 2001 Authorization
for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) -- passed at the behest of George
W. Bush just days after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 --
grants him sufficient authority to launch airstrikes in Iraq and Syria.

This is a dramatic flip-flop for President Obama, who campaigned for
president on a platform that included winding down George W. Bush’s
disastrous wars of choice overseas, and last year called for the repeal
of the very same 2001 AUMF that he is now using to justify bombing Iraq
and Syria.

Anti-war activists must urge Congress to vote against authorizing the
president's new war in Iraq and Syria. Congress rejecting authorization
is no guarantee that the president won't still go to war in Iraq and
Syria -- but it's the best shot we have to stop his plan for war.

2. This war is going to get much bigger and include ground troops if progressives don't organize a major campaign to stop it.
President Obama's war plan is to attempt to "degrade and destroy" ISIS
by arming and training "moderate" Syrian rebels and launching sustained
airstrikes in Syria and Iraq. He's also deployed 1,600 "military
advisors" in Iraq to assist the Iraqi government and the Kurds as they
battle ISIS -- and that number is likely to grow.

Secretary of State John Kerry has said that the war against ISIS could
last for three years, making it clear that the war to destroy ISIS is an
open-ended commitment to U.S. military action in the region.4Obama's plan puts the United States on a slippery slope to a drastically escalated war. It's certain that war hawks will push for a U.S.-led ground war once airstrikes don't immediately resolve the conflict.
While President Obama has declared that no ground troops will be
deployed, his top military advisors say different. Joints Chiefs of
Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey has already said that he would
recommend using American ground troops against ISIS if the current
strategy is unsuccessful -- which we know it will be.5 Gen. Ray Odierno, Army Chief of Staff, has said publicly that ground troops would be necessary to defeat ISIS.6
Even without U.S. troops on the ground, airstrikes threaten to drag the
United States into a massive conflict with Bashar al-Assad, in addition
to ISIS. President Obama has reportedly pledged to retaliate against the
Syrian government if it fires on U.S. war planes.7 If that
happens, the United States would simultaneously be fighting against two
sides of the Syrian civil war: ISIS and President Bashar al-Assad's
government. That's a recipe for disaster and further instability, which
will only make ISIS stronger.

3. The war against ISIS is a war of choice. There is no urgency
driving an American response at this moment. Even according to the
Department of Homeland Security, ISIS poses no immediate threat to the
United States.8
There is no immediate crisis as there was in August when CREDO supported
the emergency U.S. air strikes that blocked the genocidal ISIS and
helped protect minorities by holding the Kurdish defense line in
Northern Iraq.9 Since then, the situation in Iraq has
stabilized, and Iraq has formed a new government, replacing the corrupt
and divisive former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The civil war in
Syria is stuck in a bloody stalemate. The current media frenzy that has
been ginned-up largely by chickenhawks from the Bush administration and
parroted by politicians from both parties is not an adequate
justification for the United States to continue its intervention in
either Iraq or Syria.

Despite rampant alarmism from war hawks and media pundits, ISIS is a
relatively small extremist group surrounded on all sides by formidable
enemies like Iran, Syria, the Kurds and the Iraqi government.

4. The sad and simple truth is that the United States cannot lead any
intervention without making a terrible situation even worse.
When it comes to the current brutal conflict, rooted in centuries of
religious hostilities in Iraq and Syria, there is no solution that
American leadership can offer. Unfortunately, at this point in the
conflict there is no viable campaign for peace and stability initiated
by any other international or regional actor that the U.S. can join in
support.

Given America’s history of waging wars of aggression and covert
operations in the region, we are in no position to lead the way in
resolving the current conflicts in Iraq and Syria. Regional players have
the power to make a difference -- especially Turkey, Iran, Jordan,
Saudi Arabia and Iraq’s own government. But at this juncture a U.S.-led
military intervention would harm, not help, their ability to broker a
solution.

The bottom line is that there is no simple American solution to this
messy conflict, and anyone who says there is is deeply deluded.

5. Anti-war progressives can fight back. We did it a year ago and we can do it again, but we’ll need your help.
It was just over a year ago that Congress, under massive pressure from
progressives across the country, rejected President Obama's proposal to
launch airstrikes against Syria. Leaders in this fight included
progressive members of Congress like Reps. Alan Grayson, Rick Nolan and
Barbara Lee. CREDO was the first large progressive group to come out
against bombing Syria, and CREDO members helped provide the massive
grassroots pressure necessary to help them turn their colleagues against
war.

Members of the House who were expected to rubberstamp the president's
resolution authorizing military force in Syria received an unprecedented
number of phone calls opposing strikes against Syria -- including
almost 40,000 reported by CREDO members. One-by-one, members of Congress
started to come out against the attack. While it was widely believed
that the president and Majority Leader Harry Reid had the necessary
votes in the Senate to approve bombing Syria, Democratic Senators Tom
Udall and Chris Murphy stepped up and opposed a resolution authorizing
military action in Syria in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
The tide turned in the Senate, and soon the press was reporting that
opposition outnumbered support by 2 to 1.

But since last fall when we successfully rejected war with Syria, war
hawks have exploited ISIS's military successes and brutal crimes in Iraq
and Syria, including the beheading of three journalists, to increase
pressure on President Obama to go to war.

The only way to stop the march to war is to raise our voices again
and make it clear to President Obama that his progressive base will not
support war in Syria, or expanded conflict in Iraq. We’ve done it
before, we can do it again -- anti-war progressives can cut through the
hype and alarmism and put the brakes on our president's rush to war.

You’ll be hearing from us in the coming months asking you to take action
to stop this next war -- from signing petitions and making phone calls,
to organizing meetings with your representatives and hitting the
streets in protest. It will take massive pushback, but if we fight
together we can win.

It's going to take a full-court press from progressives to stop
President Obama from starting a third Iraq war. And we need your help to
pull it off.

Friday, September 19, 2014

Motion to Reject Referee's Report Filed Today after Referee Recommends Against Us

Dear Supporters,

The much-anticipated report from the referee in our case was issued this past Monday.

While rejecting the City's
claim that the petition fails to give voters adequate notice of the
petition's purpose and effect, and also rejecting the City's attempt to
have the case dismissed on a procedural technicality, the referee
recommended against us on two other issues, finding that the petition is
"merely advisory," and that the petition's financing plan is invalid.
The report can be read here.

This is by no means the final say. Today we filed a Motion to Reject the Referee's Report (click here
to read it). This puts the case in the hands of New York Supreme Court
Justice Paul Wooten, who will likely set a hearing for early next week.
We expect Justice Wooten to issue a decision by mid-week, leaving about 9
days before the October 3rd cutoff for either side to appeal.

The Referee's Report and Our Motion to Reject

The referee stated early in his
report: "After reviewing the parties respective papers, the subject
Petition, the Verified Petition and the proposed amendment to the
Charter, it appears to the Referee that NYC CAN has learned from its
failings in the 2009-litigation." (This is the same referee who handled
the past ballot initiative).

But,
despite this acknowledgment, the referee ultimately recommended against
us on two issues: whether the petition amounts to a "merely advisory"
referendum, in other words a symbolic opinion poll, and whether the
petition's financing plan is valid.

We
are pleased to report that the referee rejected the City's main
argument for the petition being "merely advisory," namely that it seeks
to reinvestigate the events of 9/11, a matter the City considers to be
primarily of national and international concern, which thus, in the
City's opinon, render's the petition "merely advisory." The referee
stated: "The collapse of 7 World Trade Center, unlike [WTC 1 and 2], is a
fundmental local concern."

However, the referee then proceeded to find the petition "merely advisory" on two other very questionable grounds.

Flawed Reasoning

First,
the referee stated that the DOB already has the authority to
investigate building collapses; therefore, the charter amendment would
not "expand" the DOB's authority. In truth, there is no standard stating
that a charter amendment must "expand" an agency's authority to avoid
being "merely advisory." The referee erroneously uses this false
standard, while ignoring the obvious change to the City Charter: the DOB
currently has the option to investigate high-rise collapses; the
High-Rise Safety Initiative would make such investigations mandatory.

Second,
the referee found that an investigation of WTC 7's collapse would be
"materially limited" and "impossible to effectuate" because the
initiative's grant of subpoena power would extend only to City
employees. Amazingly, the referee misconstrued the grant of subpoena
power, reading it to apply only to City employees, when in fact the
language in paragraph 4 of the petition states plainly that it would apply to everyone except non-City public officials, consistent with state law.

Given
the power to subpoena anyone other than non-City public officials, and
given the wealth of publicly available information that would form the
basis of any technical analyses, it is simply absurd to claim that an
investigation of WTC 7's collapse is "impossible to effectuate."

Both
of the referee's reasons for recommending against us are deeply flawed,
and we believe they can be decisively dismantled in court. We encourage
you to read our Motion to Reject the Referee's Report for more information on how we are countering the referee's findings.

The Fight Will Continue

We
want to reiterate that the referee's report is not the final say.
Indeed, there is a long way to go. We remain optimistic of convincing
Justice Wooten to reverse the referee's recommendations against us, and
of winning on appeal.

While
it is premature to consider seriously at this stage, we have also not
ruled out the possibility of mounting another effort for the next
general election if we win on the "merely advisory" issue and lose
solely on the financing plan.

It
is important to note that never in the history of ballot initiatives in
New York City has a charter amendment that cost money to implement been
found by the courts to have a valid financing plan. Despite the fact
that it's never been done before, we believe that a valid financing plan
can be written if our current financing plan is found to be invalid.
But right now, we are putting every effort into demonstrating that the
current financing plan is valid, and that the proposed charter amendment
is by no means "merely advisory."

As
always, we thank you for standing behind us in this vitally important
pursuit. We will keep you posted on developments in the coming days.

It’s been over a year since Edward Snowden brought public attention
to the breathtaking scope of President Obama’s indiscriminate spying on
American citizens who aren't suspected of any wrongdoing.‬ And
now there’s a bill in the Senate that could effectively reauthorize the
PATRIOT Act without fixing the worst constitutional abuses by the NSA.
We can’t let Congress effectively reauthorize the PATRIOT Act for an
additional 2.5 years, legalize currently illegal surveillance
activities, and grant immunity to corporations that collaborate to
violate privacy rights.

But that’s exactly what a bill now being considered in the Senate, Sen. Patrick Leahy’s USA FREEDOM Act, would do.

Tell the Senate: Oppose the USA Freedom Act in its current form. Click here to sign the petition.

This bill has been endorsed by Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper, who still hasn't not been prosecuted for lying to
Congress about the NSA’s unconstitutional surveillance dragnet of
virtually all Americans’ phone records. But surprisingly it’s also being
promoted by civil liberties groups who helped draft it including the
ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (both groups that CREDO has
funded in the past).1

This is a complicated issue and we want you to understand why CREDO
opposes this bill and is asking activists to contact their senators to
oppose it, too.

CREDO endorsed the initial Senate version of Sen. Leahy’s USA Freedom
Act, but we withdrew that endorsement after the bill was gutted in the
House of Representatives. Subsequently, Sen. Leahy redrafted the bill,
and unfortunately in its current form it doesn’t even meet our lowest
bar for reform and in fact could do more harm than good if enacted.
What’s more, this bill is likely to get worse, not better, as it moves
through the Senate. We need to send a signal to senators that we oppose
this bill as written and demand real reform that doesn’t legalize
currently illegal surveillance activities.

The latest Senate version of the USA FREEDOM Act contains ambiguities that are ripe for abuse:

The bill does not define "direct connection," which may permit the
government to access the data from Americans' smart phones through
telecommunication providers, which the USA FREEDOM act immunizes from
customer lawsuits. This would be an expansion of the NSA's current
authority.

It adds loopholes in Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, such as the
authority to collect phone records in other than daily production or to
use a corporation, organization, or government entity as a specific
selection term, which may still permit bulk data collection.2

The bill expands on the emergency provision currently approved by the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, creating new powers for the
government to retain data and introduce it as evidence even if the
courts reject the NSA's petition to collect it.

The bill also fails to substantially rein in surveillance, and stops short of establishing adequate oversight:

The bill does not safeguard against warrantless ("back door")
searches on the content of Americans' communications collected under
Section 702.

While imposing new reporting requirements, it exempts "back door"
searches conducted by the FBI, which pose one of the gravest dangers to
Americans' civil liberties.

The bill does not prevent the use of Executive Order 12333 to conduct bulk collection.3

And perhaps most damningly, the current version of the Senate
USA Freedom Act effectively reauthorizes the worst parts of the PATRIOT
Act.

The USA FREEDOM Act as written has significant potential to make our
current unconstitutional surveillance status quo worse, not better. At
best, even if faithfully implemented, the current bill will erect
limited barriers to only one of three known legal justifications for the
unconstitutional, dragnet surveillance revealed by Edward Snowden and
other whistleblowers, create additional loopholes, and provide a
statutory framework for some of the most problematic surveillance
policies, all while reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act until 2017 (the worst
parts of the PATRIOT Act, like Section 215, are currently set to sunset
in 2015).

CREDO is joined by whistleblowers Daniel Ellsberg and Mark Klein in
opposing this version of the USA Freedom Act. Our allies at Demand
Progress, Sunlight Foundation, Fight for the Future, Roots Action, and
the Courage Campaign also oppose the bill.

We’re taking our time to explain in detail why we oppose this act
because it has garnered support from some our traditional allies in this
fight. The ACLU and EFF helped Senator Leahy’s staff redraft the bill.
While they fought to block the worst compromises and agree that the bill
is far from perfect, they are still supporting its passage despite the
implications for PATRIOT Act reauthorization and the other dangers we’ve
outlined here.

CREDO supports passage of Rep. Rush Holt’s Surveillance State Repeal
Act which would repeal the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 and the FISA
Amendments Act of 2008. But until full repeal can be achieved, CREDO has
worked specifically to reform the worst abuses of both acts. This
includes fighting to roll back the National Security Letter (NSL)
provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, and fighting to make FISA Court
opinions public so that the American people know how the secret FISA
court is interpreting the law.

While we endorsed Sen. Leahy’s first version of the USA FREEDOM Act,
the bill in its current form is not the substantive reform originally
envisioned and supported by the public. We believe that focusing on
PATRIOT Act reauthorization next year when it is scheduled to sunset,
fighting the government’s unconstitutional spying in the courts, and
working with our elected representatives on the right and the left to
defund unconstitutional intelligence agency programs is a more
constructive path forward.

You will almost certainly hear from other civil liberties groups on
this issue. Some will urge you to oppose the bill like CREDO has. Others
will urge you to support this bill. We appreciate that this is a
complicated issue and we want to be sure that we share our thinking in
depth with our members so you can make an informed decision on where you
stand.

Thank you for everything you do to fight back against the violations of our 4th and 1st Amendment rights.